wcsa@iwtdr.att.com (Willard C Smith) (10/13/89)
Simply put, no one can agree on the date of Jesus's birth, except that the original dating system is wrong. Dionysius Exiguus is credited with originating the present system about the year 532 A.D. He supposed that Jesus was born on December 25th in the year of Rome 753. Alfred Edersheim, has argued extensively for Jesus's Birth occurring in 749 AUC (ie. 4 BC). This is a summary of his reasons: 1-Jesus was definitely born before the death of Herod the Great, Herod's death occurred shortly before the passover of 750 AUC. Josephus states that a lunar eclipse (Ant. xvii. 6. 4) occurred shortly before his death and the date of that eclipse can be computed. 2-Luke 3:1,23 seem to link the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceaser to Jesus when he about 30. Of course this means that Jesus was in his 30th year (29 by our reckoning, because ancient Jews started counting at one and not zero). The controversy about using this method centers around whether or not you count the reign of Tiberius from 779 AUC, when he ruled as a co-regent with Augustus, or whether you count it from 781 AUC, when he ruled solely. Most commentators today seem to agree that 779 AUC is the date to use since that is the time that Tiberius had authority over the provinces. Edersheim agrees with this position and cites those who he feels have verified this attitude of the provincials. 3-Edersheim computes the Birth of John the Baptist, based on the annunciation to his father (Luke 1:5) when he was officiating in 'the course of Abia.' Based on statements of Josephus concerning which course was officiating at the time of the destruction of the Temple (War vi. 4, 1, 5) and computing backward, 'the course of Abia' was officating in 748 AUC. According to Luke 1:26, six months after John was conceived, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. 4-One can make a similar computation, though crude, by examining John 2:20. There one can relate the age of Jesus to the time in which the temple was constructed. The temple had been under construction for 46 years, and we know when the temple was begun (ie. 20 BC), then one can argue that this event took place in 26 AD. Computing backward, one may place the birth of Jesus at 4 BC. There are two more points that Edersheim tries to make about dating the birth of Jesus: 1-The first point deals with the "star" of Bethlehem. Edersheim first searches for any type of Jewish tradition linking a star with the Messiah, and once found tries to see if it corresponds to any real happening. Edersheim quotes portions from several smaller midrashim to show that there was a "tradition" that a "star" would appear two years before the Messiah's birth. He also points out a statement by one well known Jewish commentator, Abrabanel, that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces betokened special events for Israel and that such an event occurred before the birth of Moses and that it would occur before the arrival of the Messiah (as a token of deliverance). Edersheim then shows that such a conjunction (which might occur only once every 800 years) did take place in 747 AUC no less than three times. While noone can argue for certainity that this is what is meant by the star, Edersheim thinks it remarkable that all this is happening at the same time. Personally speaking, this argument sounds like so much special pleading (considering the multitude of Christmas star theories) that I can take it or leave it. 2-Edersheim also addresses the problem of the taxing of the Quirnius, which has apparently been used to try and date the birth of Jesus to about 6 or 7 AD. While he does seem to demolish it as a method for dating his birth, especially in light of the above four points, the second problem, that of whether Matthew and Luke's account of his birth in Bethlehem is retelling a myth rather than what they personally knew, is not resolved completely. Alfred Edersheim, _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_ Vol 2, appendix 7, 1901. While Edersheim argues that Jesus was born in December and tries all sorts of things to nail it down to a range between October and December, I think that he is pushing it. Based on the arguments of the first four points I think that one can probably accept the idea that Jesus was born in 4 BC. -- 1100 E. Warrenville Rd., Naperville, IL Willard C. Smith (312) 979-0024 att!iwtdr!wcsa "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."